Phobos May Be Alien Space Base: White House adviser!!

thank you mike and WFA for posting the pictures of the anomalie prior to phobos 2's "malfunction". i've always wondered if i had really seen them and now i know for certain i have.
beachcoma asked about the shadow and the object. personally i believe the shadow is from the object photographed shortly before phobos 2 mysteriously stopped functioning. they look to be almost exactly the same shape and one would imagine an object in that high an orbit would project a shadow that large on the surface.

i also personally believe that these images from phobos 2 are probably a big help to gathering evidence for the existence of vehicles of unknown origin. as far as i know large cylindrical objects are not commonplace in space.

Originally posted by anti72
nice SCI-FI.

perhaps Mike is a disinfo poster? the whole UFO / alien story is fake, mad up by a global elite.
there are no aliens.
its made up to confuse and divert.

its all photoshopped.just think.no evidence.
but nice.

The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. You provide much less proof for your position on the matter than Mike does for his. The last time people were this closed-minded, they thought the earth was flat. Remember, just because you don't know, doesn't mean there's nothing left to learn.

reply to post by mikesingh


ok so aside from some errant crackpot, unheard of, scientists' claims.....produce a modicum of feasible proof please.

reply to post by Unit541


whoever this Mike is...hes actually 100% correct in his claim of no aliens...well done. If you desire a real conspiracy, how bout looking at everything the govt is doing in plain sight guys.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by blueyedevil666]

Originally posted by Unit541
The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

True, but neither is it evidence of presence. Absence of evidence doesn't automatically imply a greater chance of every other possible (or impossible) case happening. If I have a shoe box, and I have no evidence that there is an apple in it, does that add support to the idea that there is an apple in it?

reply to post by spikedmilk


jeez a bump on an asteroid is hardly a Monolith built by anyone...where do you see any detail of a carved or otherwise erected structure? are you guys for real?!

reply to post by mikesingh


Yes, something is clearly odd about the so called moons of Mars.
I think those 2 moons were originally floating around in the
asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Some one picked those 2 rocks
and said "Lets put these 2 in orbit around Mars."
Phobos is rock that has been hollowed out and turned into
a spacestation. The russians are on to them.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by Eurisko2012]

reply to post by spikedmilk


It looks like we should have landed one of those rovers on Phobos
to take a pic of that monolith. Anyone thinking of that movie 2010?
There was a monolith is that movie. "My God, It's full of stars!"

They are two different sightings:
one, is the cilindrical object spotted by Phobos 2 infrared camera, this one

the other one is the shadow spotted by Phobos 2 on Mars surface, and aired by the Russian television, this one

Some more infos can be found here
A PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE PHOBOS 2 UFO EVENTS
A SHADOW ACROSS THE SURFACE OF MARS
CONSEQUENCES OF PHOBOS FAILURES
THE MYSTERIOUS END OF PHOBOS 2

Phobos 1 & 2 missions
Phobos Project Information
Phobos 2 Mission Overview & Instrumentation
Diagram of the Phobos 2 instruments


[edit on 18/1/2008 by internos]

Here's a thought, why not email Dr. Singer and find out if/why he said it..

[email protected]

nasa link, labled Project Constellation about constructing a 8 person team to remain on the base for 1 year on Phobos




[edit on 18-1-2008 by Eden]

[edit on 18-1-2008 by Eden]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
And just because other people say the same thing, doesn't make it true.

Yes it does to a great extent! Because it's corroborative evidence. This aspect lends weight to an argument/statement. Just to enlighten you a bit.

In 1963, Raymond H. Wilson Jr., Chief of Applied Mathematics at NASA, joined Shklovsky and Dr. Singer in their Martian conclusions. He stated that "Phobos might be a colossal base orbiting Mars."

And who says that all what he said is true? We don't have proof. We haven't as yet opened that alien entry hatch on Phobos through which we could enter their bridge, point ahead and say, " Warp 8. Make it so"! And we haven't found our alien 'Scotty' just yet! So you need to cool off, some!

What we're trying to do here is to see how credible his observations are. Got it? A layman explanation couldn't have been simpler, what?

[edit on 18-1-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


Mike, there is no dought in my mind that Phobos is a spacestation and first line of defense and offense for the Martonians. I say this because the surface of Phobos is stealthed. I know you have been trained to see in 3D and I would like you to direct your attention to the photo in the blue and gray spectrum. [C] IKI Phobos-Fregat 25:03:89

You will see a false image on the normal gray photographs but on the surface when you look into the depths of the blue and gray spectrum images of Phobos again [C] IKI Phobos-Fregat 25:03:89 you will see what I am talking about. This is an above top secret military stealth technology used also on locations of the Earth's Moon take it to the bank.

Furthermore I want you to look at the the photo of Dr. John Becklake located at the London Science Museum 1989. Look to the far left border you will see a humanoid face in the segmented photo looking directly toward the Doctor. This is a side view surface photo statue and is unmistakenly humanoid. Rik Riley

Originally posted by optimus primal
As far as i know large cylindrical objects are not commonplace in space.

Thanks optimus! Have you checked out this thread of mine where these cylinderical objects have been discussed in detail? You may like it!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers!

reply to post by Eden


Eden, that's an excellent idea. Let's see what turns up!

And that link you provided which included missions to Phobos made an amazing read!! I haven't had the time to study it in detail, but will do so at the earliest opportunity.

See? That's why I love ATS!

Cheers!

Originally posted by goosdawg
reply to post by Beachcoma

 

Nah...that would be Klingons!

reply to post by mikesingh

It's difficult to understand how some can view these images of such wonderful alien structures, (alien as in; not of this world) and dismiss them in such a blasé, out-of-hand fashion as just big, boring rocks.

I'm a Geologist, and I don't find rocks boring, but that picture shows a discrepancy with the rest of the surface view available, and as such, deserves attention, even if it does only end up to be a 'boring rock'

you say weird anomolies. what are those anomolies?

Originally posted by blueyedevil666
hes actually 100% correct in his claim of no aliens...well done.

And you know this how? That's like saying, "There absolutely is no God, period", or, "There definitely *is* a God, beyond doubt."

There may not be aliens, but there's lots of good reasons to believe that there could be, and that the universe is teaming with life. Scientific reasons. Not blind-faith, thoughtless reasons.

Originally posted by Unit541

The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. You provide much less proof for your position on the matter than Mike does for his. The last time people were this closed-minded, they thought the earth was flat. Remember, just because you don't know, doesn't mean there's nothing left to learn.

The famous Clifford Stone quote. The last resort believers use as a counter argument when they are forced into a corner and ran out of ideas on what to say.

"The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. " This is the same point of view that people would use when they counter argument towards atheists by saying "Prove to me that God doesn't exist". And by saying "The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. " you imply "Prove to me that aliens don't exist"

Well That's not how it works.

The burden of proof is not in the hands of the non-believers. That would be stupid and laughable.

"So wait...you want me to prove that something I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste is not real?"

Doesn't that sounds a bit preposterous to you?

To use the example found in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, a celestial teapot is in orbit around Mars. However, it is SO small that even the most powerful telescopes are unable to see it. If you asked me to prove that it existed and I replied with "No, you prove to me that the celestial teapot DOESN'T exist," wouldn't that be slightly laughable?

DENY IGNORANCE





Me win.









[edit on 19-1-2008 by omnicron]

Originally posted by omnicron
That photo is simply fake. The then communist Russians would do anything to make themselves 'important' by claiming outrageous 'claims'. If this was true, it would be all over the news then....

So, the News is the arbiter of veracity? That's your proof? Our mainstream media is famous for ridiculing UFOs and the like, as a knee-jerk reaction, and has been for decades. Being ignored by the news would be par for the course, and means absolutely nothing in regards to whether or not the event actually happened as claimed.

Originally posted by omnicron

Me win.

No you don't.